Blueberry plant denominated ‘Huron’

ABSTRACT

‘Huron’ is a new blueberry cultivar of primarily  Vaccinium corymbosum  from the Michigan State University breeding program. The rest of its parentage is from  V. darrowii  (12.5%) and  V. angustifolium  (3.15%). It is a productive, early ripening cultivar with very high fresh market quality and a long storage life. It is intended for areas where northern highbush cultivars are grown successfully. Plants of ‘Huron’ are vigorous and upright. Canes are numerous, moderately branched and the fruit are well exposed. Its berries are moderately large, have small, dry picking scars, medium blue color, excellent firmness and superior flavor, if allowed to fully ripen.

Latin name and variety denomination: The present invention relates to anew and distinct variety of Vaccinium corymbosum, which is herebydenominated ‘Huron.’

SUMMARY

The present invention relates to a new and distinct variety of highbushblueberry plant, denominated ‘Huron.’ ‘Huron’ is a new blueberrycultivar of primarily Vaccinium corymbosum from the Michigan StateUniversity breeding program. The rest of its parentage is from V.darrowii (12.5%) and V. angustifolium (3.15%). It is a productive, earlyripening cultivar with very high fresh market quality and a long storagelife. It is intended for areas where northern highbush cultivars aregrown successfully. Plants of ‘Huron’ are vigorous and upright. Canesare numerous, moderately branched and the fruit are well exposed. Itsberries are moderately large, have small, dry picking scars, medium bluecolor, excellent firmness and superior flavor, if allowed to fullyripen. The size of the fruit is unusually regular and is presented in aloose cluster.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention will become more fully understood from thedetailed description and the accompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1 is a photographic print in full color of a ‘Huron’ blueberry bushin the late stage of ripening, where the bush is in the foreground andthe additional plants or portions thereof in the background and thegrass on the ground are not part of the ‘Huron’ blueberry plant; and

FIG. 2 is a photographic print in full color illustrating a ‘Huron’branch with exemplary fruit clusters, where most, but not all, of thefruit shown is mature.

DETAILED BOTANICAL DESCRIPTION

The following is a detailed botanical description of the new anddistinct variety of blueberry denominated ‘Huron,’ its flowers, fruitand foliage. The original selection of ‘Huron’ was evaluated at theSouthwest Michigan Research and Extension at Benton Harbor, Mich. forten years. Hardwood cuttings were also set in a replicated design with26 other Michigan State University selections at Grand Junction, Mich.,South Haven, Mich., Lacota, Mich., Corvallis, Oreg., and Lowell, Oreg.The plantings in Michigan were evaluated for seven years, while theplantings in Oregon were evaluated for two years.

The first harvest of ‘Huron’ falls between the most widely grown earlycultivar ‘Duke’ and the most important midseason ones, ‘Draper’ and‘Bluecrop’. ‘Huron’ has larger fruit than ‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Duke’, as wellas a longer shelf life. It is a little smaller fruited than ‘Draper’with slightly darker fruit, but its fruiting season is earlier. ‘Draper’is described in “Blueberry plant denominated ‘Draper,’” U.S. Plant Pat.No. 15,103 to Hancock, which was filed on Jan. 23, 2003 and issued Aug.24, 2004, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

Emasculated flowers of MU-6566, the male parent (i.e., the seed parent),were pollinated in 1991 with pollen from G-344U, the female parent. Theseeds were germinated, grown in a greenhouse for 1 year and then fieldplanted at the Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center (SWMREC)in Benton Harbor, Mich. ‘Huron’ was selected from a group of 87 siblingsin 1997.

MU-6566 [MU-22 (‘Ashworth’×‘Bluecrop’)×MU-13 (‘Ashworth’×‘Earliblue’)]originated from the USDA/ARS collaborative breeding program. It wasoriginally selected at Jonesboro, Me. and evaluated later at GrandJunction, Mich. for 6 years. It had an unusually late flowering date foran early genotype and very high yields, but its fruit were dark and weakflavored. G-344 [US 75 (‘Bluecrop’×V. darrowii Fla 4b)×Elizabeth)], alsocame from the USDA/ARS collaborative breeding program and was originallyselected in Hammonton, N.J. It was later evaluated at Grand Junction,Mich. for 10 years. The fruit of G-344 were firm, powder blue with apleasant, complex flavor, but many of its flower buds were damaged bywinter cold, presumably due to a high contribution (25%) of the nativesouthern species, V. darrowii, in its ancestry.

‘Huron’ is moderately self-fertile but requires' pollination fromanother highbush blueberry cultivar for maximum fruit development.

‘Huron’ may be propagated by hardwood cuttings in a greenhouse and thenplanted in the field. Initiation of root development from hardwoodcuttings may take about four to six weeks. In addition, ‘Huron’ may bepropagated by rooted softwood cuttings. Furthermore, generation ofmicro-shoots in a greenhouse using established tissue culture methodsmay be used to produce plants of ‘Huron.’

Initiation of root development from microshoots takes about three tofour weeks. Such methods are discussed in the following references:Doran, W. L. and Bailey, J. S. “Propagation of the high bush blueberryby softwood cuttings,” Bulletin Massachusetts Agricultural ExperimentStation; no. 410. Amherst, Mass. Massachusetts State College, 1943;Doehlert, C. A. “Propagating blueberries from hardwood cuttings,”Circular (New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station) 490. NewBrunswick, N.J. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, 1945;Doehlert, C. A. “Propagating blueberries from hardwood cuttings,”Circular (New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station) 551. NewBrunswick, N.J.: New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953;Zimmerman, R. H. 1991. Micropropagation of temperate zone fruit and nutcrops. In: Debergh, P. C. and Zimmerman, R. H. (eds.) Micropropagation:Technology and application. Kluwer, Dordreckt; El Shiekh, A.; Wildung,D. K.; Luby, J. J.; Sargent, K. L.; Read, P. E. “Long term effects ofpropagation by tissue culture or softwood single node cuttings on growthhabit, yield, and berry weight of ‘Northblue’ blueberry,” Journal of theAmerican Society for Horticultural Science. 1996, 121: 2, 339 342;Galletta, G. J.; Ballington, J. R.; Daubeny, H. A.; Brennan, R. M.;Reisch, B. J.; Pratt, C.; Ferguson, A. R.; Seal, A. G.; McNeilage, M.A.; Fraser, L. G.; Harvey, C. F.; Beatson, R. A.; Hancock, J. F.; Scott,D. H.; Lawrence, F. J.; Janick, J. (ed.); Moore, J. N. “Fruit breeding.Volume II. Vine and small fruits,” Department of Horticulture, PurdueUniversity, West Lafayette, Ind. 1996 John Wiley and Sons; New York;USA; Strik, B.; Brun, C.; Ahmedullah, M.; Antonelli, A.; Askham, L.;Barney, D.; Bristow, P.; Fisher, G.; Hart, J.; Havens, D. Draper A. D.and Chandler C. K. “Accelerating highbush blueberry selection evaluationby early propagation,” Journal of the American Society for HorticulturalScience. 1986 111(2): 301-303; Pritts M. P. and Hancock J. F. (Eds.)“Highbush blueberry production guide,” Northeast Regional AgriculturalEngineering Service, Ithaca, N.Y., USA 1992.

Taxonomic characteristics disclosed herein are standard in the practice(R E Gough, R J Hindle, and V G Shutak, “Identification of Ten HighbushBlueberry Cultivars using Morphological Characteristics,” HortScience 11(5): 512-4, 1976). Color descriptions, except those given in commonterms, are presented in Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chartdesignations. In cases where the color descriptions cited from The RoyalHorticultural Society Colour Chart differ from the colors shown in thedrawings, the colors cited from The Royal Horticultural Society ColourChart should be considered accurate. Any deviation from these colors inthe drawings is due to failure of the photographic process to exactlyduplicate the colors of nature. In addition, fruit color designations inTable 1 are applicable only to mature fruit.

TABLE 1 ‘Huron’ Characteristics Characteristic ‘Huron’ Bush: Matureheight: 1.4 m Mature width: 0.9 m Height/width ratio: 1.5 Growth habit:Upright Annual renewal canes: 32-65 Internode length on spring shoots:2-3 cm Mature cane color: Grayed-green (197A) Mature cane length:1.0-1.4 m Mature cane width: 0.5-2.5 cm Bark texture: Smooth to roughFall color on new shoots: Yellow green (146C) with blushes of red-purple(61B) Foliage: Leaf shape: Ovoid to Elliptic Apex shape: Acute Baseshape: Obtuse Leaf length: 4.7-6.7 cm (5.4 cm average) Leaf width:2.0-2.8 cm (2.6 cm average) Leaf length/width ratio: 2.0 Leaf margin:entire Leaf nectarines: Absent Pubescence: none Color upper surface:green (137C) Color lower surface: green (138C) Petiole length: 3.0 cmPetiole color: Green (137C) Bud: Bud shape: Oblanceolate Bud width:2.0-3.0 mm (2.1 mm average) Bud length: 4.1 mm-5.3 mm (5.1 mm average)Color: Reddish-brown Blossoms: Shape of corolla: Elongate-ureolateCalyx: 5 lobed Style length: 7-9 mm Color of open flower: White Flower #per cluster: 8-9 Pistil: One per flower Pistil Color: Green (137A)Pistil length: 7-9 mm Flower diameter: 5-6 mm Flower length: 7-9 mmFragrance: Faint blueberry aroma Reproductive Organs: Type: Berry Seedsize: 1.7 mm Number of seeds: 20-50 (42 average) Mature fruit: Length:1.0-1.2 cm (1.1 cm average) Width: 1.5-1.9 cm (1.75 cm average) Color:Violet Blue (98A) Shape: Globose, uniform Color with bloom: Violet blue(98D) Color without bloom: Blue (103A) Pedicel scar size: 1.8 mm Pedicellength: 4-6 mm Pedicel color: Green (137A) Peduncle length: 5-6 cmPeduncle color: Green (137A) Average weight: 1.7 g

Consistent high yields at multiple sites in Michigan indicate that thebuds and wood of ‘Huron’ are tolerant to fluctuating late fall andspring temperatures. It is exceptionally late flowering and was one ofthe few early to mid-season genotypes to survive a late frost in themid-1990s. ‘Huron’ also has excellent winter hardiness, as it hasroutinely been challenged with mid-winter temperatures below −20° C.

In the trials conducted in Michigan at Grand Junction, ‘Huron’ wasconsistently one of the top rated advanced selections. It had among thehighest fruit load of any of the early to midseason cultivars and thebest flavor, as illustrated in Tables 2, 3, and 5. The average date offirst harvest was 5 days before ‘Draper’ and six days after ‘Duke’. Thefruit of ‘Huron’ was slightly softer than ‘Draper’ and much firmer than‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Duke’. ‘Huron's’ fruit were smaller than ‘Draper’, butlarger than ‘Duke’ and ‘Bluecrop’. Its fruit color was similar to‘Duke’, but a little darker than ‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Draper’. ‘Huron’ fruithad a storage life as long as ‘Draper’, which was several weeks longerthan ‘Duke’ and ‘Bluecrop,’ as illustrated in Table 4. ‘Huron’ had thesecond highest levels of soluble solids next to ‘Draper’ and the secondlowest acidity next to ‘Duke’. The evaluations done at Lacota and SouthHaven were informal, but generally mirrored the observations made atGrand Junction.

In the trials conducted in Oregon, ‘Huron’ was superior to all but a fewof the advanced selections. However, its yields were not as high as inMichigan and its fruit were a little softer and smaller. Its fruitflavor and firmness was superior to ‘Bluecrop,’ but not ‘Draper.’‘Draper’ and ‘Bluecrop’ also had higher yields than ‘Huron’.

TABLE 2 Mean fruit ratings and ranges (parenthesis) of ‘Duke,’ ‘Huron,’‘Draper,’ and ‘Bluecrop’ at Grand Junction, Michigan from 2001-2007. Twoyear old plants were set in 1999 at 4 × 10’ spacing with 26 otherMichigan State University selections. Evaluations were made when thebushes were about 50% ripe. Date Pick- of 1^(st) Weight ing Firm- FruitCultivar harvest (g) Color scar ness Flavor load ‘Duke’ 7/3  1.5  7^(Z)8 8 6 7 (6/26- (1.4- (7-8) (7-9) (7-9) (5-7) (7-9) 7/11) 2.0) ‘Huron’7/9  1.7 7 8 8 9 8 (6/28- (1.6- (7-8) (7-9) (7-9) (8-9) (8-9) 7/22) 1.9)‘Draper’ 7/14 2.1 8 9 9 8 8 (7/10- (1.5- (8-9) (8-9) (8-9) (8-9) (7-9)7/19) 2.6) ‘Bluecrop’ 7/14 1.6 8 7 7 6 7 (7/4- (1.4- (7-8) (7-8) (7-8)(5-7) (8-9) 7/21) 2.0) ^(Z)The rating scale 1-9, with 1-4 = inferior,5-6 = acceptable, 7 = good, 8 = very good, and 9 = superior.

TABLE 3 Taste panel results for ‘Duke ,’ ‘Huron,’ ‘Draper,’ and‘Bluecrop’ in 2006 and 2007. The taste panel consisted of 25-30individuals representing a cross section of the East Lansing, MIcommunity. The panelists were given 5 fully ripe fruit of each varietyand were ask to sample the fruit together. They rated it from 1 (poor)to 10 (superior) for sweetness, tartness, texture and overall flavor.Overall Cultivar Sweetness Tartness Texture Flavor ‘Duke’ 5.1 6.0 7.25.9 (5.1-5.2) (6.0-6.3) (7.1-6.9) (5.6-6.2) ‘Huron’ 6.2 5.7 6.9 7.2(5.8-6.6) (5.6-5.8) (6.5-7.3) (7.0-7.4) ‘Draper’ 5.3 6.1 7.5 6.6(4.7-6.0) (5.7-6.5) (7.5-7.6) (6.1-7.0) ‘Bluecrop’ 6.1 6.0 7.0 7.2(5.7-6.5) (5.8-6.2) (6.9-7.1) (7.1-7.3)

TABLE 4 Chemical and physical measurements of the fruit of ‘Duke’,‘Huron’, ‘Draper,’ and Bluecrop’ harvested in Grand Junction Michigan in2006 and 2007. Five fruit samples were evaluated for soluble solids(SS), titratable acidity (TA) and firmness (g/mm). Storage life wascalculated as the number of weeks that the majority of fruit remainedfirm at 5° C. Firmness Storage Cultivar SS TA SS/TA (g/mm) life ‘Duke’11.6 0.59 19.7 302 3.0 (10.8-12.4) (0.58-0.61) (17.7-21.3) (250-352)(1.0-5) ‘Huron’ 11.5 0.65 17.7 359 6.0 (11.0-12.0) (0.61-0.69)(18.0-17.4) (336-383) (5-7) ‘Draper’ 12.9 0.81 15.9 345 6.0 (12.9-13.0)(0.97-0.65) (13.2-20.0) (320-365) (5-7) ‘Bluecrop’ 11.0 0.82 13.4 2022.5 (10.0-12.0) (0.75-0.89) (13.3-13.5) (180-222) (1-4)

TABLE 5 Mean fruit ratings of ‘Draper,’ ‘Huron,’ and ‘Bluecrop’ atLowell and Corvallis, OR from 2001-2002. Two-year-old plants were set in2000 at 4 × 10′ spacing with 26 other Michigan State Universityselections. Evaluations were made when the bushes were 50% ripe. Allvalues were similar in the two years. Fruit Picking Firm- LocationCultivar load Size Color scar ness Flavor Corvallis ‘Draper’  8^(z) 8 88 9 8 ‘Huron’ 7 7 7 7 8 8 ‘Bluecrop’ 8 7 7 7 7 6 Lowell ‘Draper’ 8 8 8 89 8 ‘Huron’ 7 7 7 7 8 7 ‘Bluecrop’ 8 7 7 7 7 6 ^(Z)The rating scale 1-9,with 1-4 = inferior, 5-6 = acceptable, 7 = good, 8 = very good, and 9 =superior.

Blueberry growers in Michigan and the cooler production regions acrossthe USA, Europe, and Canada will find ‘Huron’ desirable as a new earlynorthern highbush variety. However, some fruit pedicles of ‘Huron’ fruitremain attached in very hot weather. The fruit of ‘Huron’ also developssugar slowly and if picked too early can be very tart. In addition, thefruit clusters of ‘Huron’ are relatively tight, which may reduce pickingefficiency.

1. A new and distinct highbush blueberry plant, substantially asillustrated and described herein.